Science Q&A: Cold Weather & Global Warming
in [Physics]
|
Prev: precision definition of a finite-line compared to finite-number #338; Correcting Math
Next: The scheme of Universe.
From: tg on 26 Jan 2010 15:21 On Jan 26, 2:56 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > On Jan 26, 10:20 am, tg <tgdenn...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 26, 9:38 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 25, 3:44 pm, Mike Jr <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 25, 1:26 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Science Q&A: Cold Weather & Global Warming > > > > > > Jay Gulledge, Senior Scientist and Program Manager for Science & Impacts > > > > > > > Is heavy snowfall or unusually cold weather inconsistent with global warming? > > > > > > > You need two things to create heavy snowfall: moist air and cold air. The two generally > > > > > > don't occur in the same air mass because cold air can't hold much moisture. So you > > > > > > need two air masses, one that is warm and moist and one that is cold and dry, to > > > > > > collide with each other. > > > > > > > This condition is not only consistent with global warming, but it can be expected > > > > > > to occur more frequently in certain places as a direct result of global warming. > > > > > > Read more... [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102959188264&s=26950&e=001q-qfCbFCZxg8RGZho...] > > > > > But global warming should make it less likely that those cold arctic > > > > blasts head south. > > > > Ask yourself this question: Why does the arctic air always flow more > > > or less from northwest to southeast? Once you answer this question, > > > maybe you'll understand just how silly that statement is. > > > > > Given that the temperature anomaly is on the order of 1/5 of a single > > > > degree Celsius, Jay Gulledge is claiming an amazing effect for such a > > > > small stimulus. So what should we expect? As CO2 builds up the world > > > > goes more and more into an ice age? > > > > There's some consensus on that. > > > Which is there a consensus on? The statement that a temperature > > anomaly in the mean temperature is a 'stimulus' is as nonsensical as > > the business about the cold arctic air. > > Ice age following build up of CO2. Ok thanks---that's what I thought. -tg
From: I M on 26 Jan 2010 17:20 On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:10:30 -0600, Bill Ward <bward(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: >On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 05:26:04 +1030, Surfer wrote: > >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:43:15 -0600, "mary" <nospam(a)invalid.com> wrote: >> >> >>>"Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:0rydnf9wkPfbf8DWnZ2dnUVZ_sNi4p2d(a)mchsi.com... >>>> >>>>> Science Q&A: Cold Weather & Global Warming Jay Gulledge, Senior >>>>> Scientist and Program Manager for Science & Impacts >>>>> >>>>> Is heavy snowfall or unusually cold weather inconsistent with global >>>>> warming? >>>>> >>>>> You need two things to create heavy snowfall: moist air and cold air. >>>>> The two generally >>>>> don't occur in the same air mass because cold air can't hold much >>>>> moisture. So you >>>>> need two air masses, one that is warm and moist and one that is cold >>>>> and dry, to >>>>> collide with each other. >>>>> >>>>> This condition is not only consistent with global warming, but it can >>>>> be expected >>>>> to occur more frequently in certain places as a direct result of >>>>> global warming. >>> >>> >>>what a load of BS. >>> >> No. Its correct. >> >> Another point is that if CO2 traps heat near the earths surface, then >> air higher up will receive less heat from the surface so will become >> colder. > >Perhaps you could explain exactly how CO2 "traps" heat. My understanding >is that GHGs convert LWIR into sensible heat. The warmer GHG molecules >then heat the surrounding air, which convects high enough to radiate to >space via GHGs. Since the air is free to convect there's no "trapping" >of energy. > >Can you explain why you think there's "trapping", or are you just >believing it because you've been told to? That hypothesis should reveal itself quickly with gross changes in high altitude temperatures as surface humidity changes, or the shortness of the range of LWIR is evident, as LTE seems to suggest. I sure hope climate science is better thought out than such a simplistic assumption. There is such a great difference in low level proportions of water vapor and CO2, validity of the assumption should be easy to determine.
From: David Staup on 26 Jan 2010 18:54 "Igor" <thoovler(a)excite.com> wrote in message news:b5bbdd2d-020d-4f5d-bc4e-bfe5bbb2f844(a)c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... On Jan 26, 2:16 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 25, 10:26 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Science Q&A: Cold Weather &Global Warming > > > Jay Gulledge, Senior Scientist and Program Manager for Science & > > > Impacts > > > > Is heavy snowfall or unusually cold weather inconsistent withglobal > > > warming? > > > > You need two things to create heavy snowfall: moist air and cold air. > > > The two generally > > > don't occur in the same air mass because cold air can't hold much > > > moisture. So you > > > need two air masses, one that is warm and moist and one that is cold > > > and dry, to > > > collide with each other. > > > > This condition is not only consistent withglobal warming, but it can > > > be expected > > > to occur more frequently in certain places as a direct result ofglobal > > > warming. > > > Read more... > > > [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102959188264&s=26950&e=001q-qfCbFCZxg8RGZho...] > > As long as we hold onto our moon(Selene) we can't possibly have > another ice age, not to mention those added TeraWatts worth of our > mostly sooty energy plus artificially vaporized and natural water > cycles made acidic by our CO2, NOx and of course loads of sulfur, > plus various natural and artificial ventings of raw/toxic methane > contributions that are not exactly helping. Thanks mostly to the > solar wind, we are also losing our precious helium and hydrogen by > 100<1000 tonnes/sec (w/o solar wind that loss might average >10 tonnes/ > sec, and without our contributions it might even conceivably drop >1 t/ > sec). In other words, we seem to be making this global warming trend > a whole lot worse than mother nature could ever hope to achieve. > > The good news is that essentially we�ll run ourselves out of many > natural reservoirs and buried kinds of raw elements, so that whatever > remains can readjust to the raped, plundered and pillaged reality of > getting on with the more natural trends of global geodynamics and its > diminished biodiversity of traumatized evolution that�ll have > considerably fewer humans to deal with. > > Other than all that, plus a measured factor of global dimming that > absorbs more solar energy, what could possibly go wrong with the good > life w/o slow-ice on planet Eden/Earth? > > Here�s a simplistic simulator package that has a little something for > everyone. (have yourself a ball) > > Obviously aerodynamic drag (much greater before we had that moon), as > well as lacking important factors of the lithobraking, loss/transfer > of icy mass and other tidal forces of the sun are not involved within > this simulation, but none the less it�s a good enough example of how a > capture might actually be easily accomplished. > http://isthis4real.com/orbit.xml > > There�s also the Roche Limit to consider: > �In 1848, Astronomer Edouard Roche noted that, if a satellite was > held together mainly by its own gravitational attraction, there would > be a minimum distance from the primary inside which the tidal forces > of the primary would exceed the satellite�s binding forces and would > tear it apart [Hoskin, 1996].� > > The Roche Limit for two bodies is approximated by a function of their > densities: > Earth 18,470 km > Jupiter 175,000 > Saturn 147,000 > Uranus 62,000 > > Each near miss by that process of capturing an icy Selene of perhaps > 8e22 kg, would have pulled large portions of that thick ice away from > its surface, and thereby making its capture easier as mass and thereby > energy is extracted from Selene. > > ~ BG http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y more like Bizzaro world .. Generally things in Bizarro World are the opposite of things in this world, however in Bizarro World things that are the opposite are the same and things that are the same are opposite, leading to general confusion and a lack of understanding. Though it may not make sense to us, it does make sense to people in Bizarro World. However, in Bizarro World, people cannot understand things that make sense
From: Tom P on 26 Jan 2010 19:41 Surfer wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:43:15 -0600, "mary" <nospam(a)invalid.com> wrote: > >> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:0rydnf9wkPfbf8DWnZ2dnUVZ_sNi4p2d(a)mchsi.com... >>>> Science Q&A: Cold Weather & Global Warming >>>> Jay Gulledge, Senior Scientist and Program Manager for Science & Impacts >>>> >>>> Is heavy snowfall or unusually cold weather inconsistent with global >>>> warming? >>>> >>>> You need two things to create heavy snowfall: moist air and cold air. The >>>> two generally >>>> don't occur in the same air mass because cold air can't hold much >>>> moisture. So you >>>> need two air masses, one that is warm and moist and one that is cold and >>>> dry, to >>>> collide with each other. >>>> >>>> This condition is not only consistent with global warming, but it can be >>>> expected >>>> to occur more frequently in certain places as a direct result of global >>>> warming. >> >> what a load of BS. >> > No. Its correct. > > Another point is that if CO2 traps heat near the earths surface, then > air higher up will receive less heat from the surface so will become > colder. > > Except that the greenhouse effect doesn't really work that way. The greenhouse effect works from the top of the troposphere downwards. A good introduction is here: http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/physics-of-the-greenhouse-effect-pt-1/
From: Jonathan on 27 Jan 2010 21:00
"Mike Jr" <n00spam(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:00ab23c7-4b5a-4915-a8eb-3e0c99efe0e5(a)z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... On Jan 25, 9:15 pm, "Jonathan" <maats...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > "Mike Jr" <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > [] > *>But once *> such a system approaches the tipping point, or point *> of trend reversal, the system / volatility / dramatically *> increases, foreshadowing the tipping point to an equally *> dramatic change in long term direction. > Take a look at this paper: > http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf > There are energy considerations that lock the planetary average flux > optical depth to a value of 1.841. > Add as much CO2 as you want, the system will not reach a tipping > point. The only thing that can change this is a change in the amount > of insolation entering the top of the atmosphere or the amount of heat > coming up out of the ground. > --Mike Jr. I tend to agree with the idea in that paper that the biosphere is very stable, as I said later in my (long-winded) post... "You can pump all the greenhouses gasses you want into the atmosphere without much worry, provided the...RATE OF CHANGE...is modest and steady. The biosphere, and humanity will adapt just fine." But I think the weak spot in that paper is in the conclusion, when they wrote.... "The greenhouse effect is tied to the energy conservation principle through the [....] equations and can not be changed without increasing the energy input to the system." Isn't human activity essentially increasing the energy input? Things like life and 'wisdom' violate physical conservation laws as the order or equilibrium is established internally, not from boundary conditions. It's fine to assume solar radiation is essentially constant, due to it's slow rates of change, but oil isn't really part of the biosphere until we pump it up right? But also the recent trend of 100,000 long year ice ages, with brief warming periods, is thought to be from astronomical reasons yet unknown. Which hints that astronomical changes, like changing light levels, orbits or impacts, tend to have a far stronger ability to effect the biosphere than terrestrial changes. In Complexity Science these two different types of change, astronomical vs terrestrial, can be placed in abstract form, which allows a clearer view I think. It boils down to the two primary ways in which change, or disturbances, are connect to, or cascade throughout a system. For instance, changes in solar radiation have a very high level of parallel connectivity throughout the system. Almost every system on Earth would be instantaneously effected AND at the same time by a sudden change in sunlight.or even some large impact from space. It's exactly that kind of disturbance (massively and directly connected) which generates all kinds of non-linear reactions, as it's like a shock wave that can snowball and have all kinds of totally disproportional or unintended reactions. Call that kind of change 'top down', or dictatorial change. The other kind is of course bottom up, or from the ground. where change starts slowly and only spreads as fast as the system will allow. And it's the second kind of natural change through growth which is healthy and can be easily absorbed by a stable biosphere. Life, of course, is typically the second healthy type of change. BUT, if the rate of changes due to life is high enough, it acts like the first kind. Emergent change, like intelligence or technology, can act like astronomical change. Which is why it's crucial that democracy span the globe as soon as possible. Then all these problems will take care of themselves. Even impacts and unexpected 'issues' from the sun could be .....handled then. Jonathan [] |